Does anyone else have trouble believing that 4 degrees is going to cause the end of the world? Sure, on Celsius scale, 4 degrees is pretty significant if you go from 0 to 23 (an 18% increase). But if you switch this to Kelvin (which is what the actual temperature is) the variance is 1.4%.

Are we so fragile that a number we normally consider "in the noise" is enough to wreck the entire planet?

ajgeek:Does anyone else have trouble believing that 4 degrees is going to cause the end of the world? Sure, on Celsius scale, 4 degrees is pretty significant if you go from 0 to 23 (an 18% increase). But if you switch this to Kelvin (which is what the actual temperature is) the variance is 1.4%.

Are we so fragile that a number we normally consider "in the noise" is enough to wreck the entire planet?

I'm going to take this at face value, since your profile says you "rarely" troll.

First, "in the noise" for a day (or even a season) is not the same as "in the noise" over the longer term of years and decades. As an analogy, compare the temperature to your personal budget. Your bank balance is probably all over the place over a given month, depending on when bills fall due. It probably even has seasonal variations (e.g. spending goes up during the holidays). But overall, what matters is whether spending is higher or lower than income over the long term. And if spending is higher than income, even by a small amount, in the long run bad things will happen.

The other thing about climate is that it's a complex, non-linear system with lots of feedback loops. And like many such systems, it can remain stable within certain parameters, but flip into a different stable state that has very different outputs for a small change in inputs.

Here's a simple (and simplified) example. The planet warms a little. Ice cover in the arctic declines a little. With less ice (bright) and more exposed water (dark), more sunlight is absorbed in the arctic ocean so that particular part of the planet warms even faster, accelerating the ice loss. At some point the rate of loss passes a tipping point, and a huge amount of ice dumps into the ocean. That causes an important ocean circulatory system that brings warm water north to shut down, and suddenly northern Europe is getting Ice Age-like winters. But it all happens because over a sustained period, the arctic was warmer by an amount that on a single day would be "in the noise".

To continue the budget analogy, suppose you deal with your budget shortfall by charging stuff to your credit cards. So now you have to pay interest on the credit cards in addition to your other expenses, so now your budget shortfall is even worse, so you charge even more to your cards. Pretty soon, the interest charges are eating ever more of your budget, and your shortfall is accelerating... Before long you've forfeited your car title on a payday loan, you're sleeping in the park, and you're giving $10 blowjobs at truck-stops to make ends meet.That's an example of a non-linear system: a relatively small shortfall in your budget turns into a catastrophic outcome.

Anyway, that's the basic principle.

If you want to understand it properly (i.e. not my half-assed explanation and analogy), there's tons of material available online at any depth of detail and degree of quantification you want -- but it's only useful to people who are open to the concept that a nominally small change, sustained over a long period, can cause a dramatic change in a system's state.

Whatever gets people to wake the fark up and pay attention to this shiat is fine by me. We're going to have some very challenging times ahead. I don't think any of this will result in the worst possible outcomes, but we as a species are going to have to do some serious re-structuring of our economy and society.

ajgeek:Does anyone else have trouble believing that 4 degrees is going to cause the end of the world? Sure, on Celsius scale, 4 degrees is pretty significant if you go from 0 to 23 (an 18% increase). But if you switch this to Kelvin (which is what the actual temperature is) the variance is 1.4%.

Are we so fragile that a number we normally consider "in the noise" is enough to wreck the entire planet?

The problem is that anything above a two degree variation will completely alter the weather patterns. The more variation, the more extreme that change is predicted to be.

Think of how insignificant we have changed that temperature thus far and what the known consequences are. Storms of the century are annual or biannual. Weather related deaths are already increasing. Weather patterns become stuck (heat waves last for a month).

Especially when you consider that during the last interglacial period, the water was at least 10 meters higher, and we haven't even hit peak yet.... Whether AGW or not, the planet is going to get warmer. That's as easy a prediction as saying the sun will ride tomorrow

Does anyone else have trouble believing that 4 degrees is going to cause the end of the world? Sure, on Celsius scale, 4 degrees is pretty significant if you go from 0 to 23 (an 18% increase). But if you switch this to Kelvin (which is what the actual temperature is) the variance is 1.4%.

Are we so fragile that a number we normally consider "in the noise" is enough to wreck the entire planet?

First, you comment regarding the proportion the change is to Kelvin shows you have no idea of what you are talking about. You want to compare the range of temperatures we are comfortable in to absolute zero (no atomic or molecular vibration)? Really?

Second, yes, we (our systems) are that fragile. The biggest problem is we have grown a huge population that is dependent on things staying the same. 100 degrees is hot, but not near records. Yet when cities not used to that kind of heat, or even not used to long periods of time at that kind of heat, get hit with it, people, plants and animals die, huge amounts of energy are used causing price increases and shortages, consumption patterns change and the markets are not ready, food is either in low supply or rotting. We saw this last summer in a few cities. Now spread it world wide. This is why the bank is getting involved (and Kudos to them for thinking this far ahead!). The biggest kicker? The global air temperature last year wasn't significantly higher than the year before (the extra heat went into melting arctic ice instead - see czetie's post on the effect of that). That was all just redistribution.

3-4 deg C sounds bad, but it wasn't that long ago I was hearing about a potential rise of 5-7 deg F. So maybe things aren't as bad as we thought.

But the REAL problem with all this is found in the sentence, "The World Bank just commissioned an analysis by scientists at the Potsdam Institute"

How can you have global warming subject to analysis by SCIENTISTS without there being a conflict of interest? Global warming is a product of SCIENTIFIC research, so the only way to get an impartial assessment is to commission an analysis by NON-scientists. Religious leaders, fossil fuel industry accountants, political pundits, for example, could all do a better job. This Potsdam Institute study is a classic case of the fox guarding the chicken coop.

ajgeek:Does anyone else have trouble believing that 4 degrees is going to cause the end of the world? Sure, on Celsius scale, 4 degrees is pretty significant if you go from 0 to 23 (an 18% increase). But if you switch this to Kelvin (which is what the actual temperature is) the variance is 1.4%.

Are we so fragile that a number we normally consider "in the noise" is enough to wreck the entire planet?

Just to pile on, TFA stated that a 4.5 degree drop started the last Ice Age.

BornOfFire:3-4 deg C sounds bad, but it wasn't that long ago I was hearing about a potential rise of 5-7 deg F. So maybe things aren't as bad as we thought.

But the REAL problem with all this is found in the sentence, "The World Bank just commissioned an analysis by scientists at the Potsdam Institute"

How can you have global warming subject to analysis by SCIENTISTS without there being a conflict of interest? Global warming is a product of SCIENTIFIC research, so the only way to get an impartial assessment is to commission an analysis by NON-scientists. Religious leaders, fossil fuel industry accountants, political pundits, for example, could all do a better job. This Potsdam Institute study is a classic case of the fox guarding the chicken coop.

I love the foofaraw because, you see, it's too late. The window of opportunity for prevention has passed, thanks to decades of yammering by morons more worried about their wallets than their well-being. Scientists have pretty much stated that to the UK. Thanks to the disinformation, personal attacks, and outright lies pushed by folks unwilling to accept the bald truth, humanity as a whole has missed that window of opportunity. From the linked article:

The latest study from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put the inevitability of drastic global warming in the starkest terms yet, stating that major impacts on parts of the world - in particular Africa, Asian river deltas, low-lying islands and the Arctic - are unavoidable and the focus must be on adapting life to survive the most devastating changes.

We're now talking about preparation and mitigation, and even now, those same morons are terrified that they won't be able to make money off the slow, but inevitable, suffering of the poor. In my dotage, I shall watch with keen interest as humanity's course changes over the next half-century, knowing full well that humanity as a whole could've done something about it decades ago had we only the intelligence and will at that time.

czetie:I'm going to take this at face value, since your profile says you "rarely" troll.

Thanks for the input. I'm still having difficulty with the concept of the system, though. As a non-biologist (and really what is earth but a biosphere with humans mucking about?) it's really hard to imagine a system that isn't capable of maintaining some form of homeostasis despite constant external forces being placed on it. Humans are obviously the most recent, but with 4 billion years of growth, one would imagine that more than a select few species would have a wider viability range than it's currently believed.

abrannan:Just to pile on, TFA stated that a 4.5 degree drop started the last Ice Age.

Oh... that's just awesome. I confess I did miss that. I skimmed more than read.

thurstonxhowell:Are you trying to win some sort of "most misunderstandings in one sentence" contest?

I've admitted I'm an idiot, so there's that. I think some incredulity is warranted with such a huge claim though. I have the same level of skepticism about stem cell research, teleportation, warp drives and the Higgs Boson. I don't discount any of them, but in general, these are massive concepts which have taken teams of people years and decades to work on. One single person couldn't possibly understand all of them based on theoretical knowledge only.

FormlessOne:I love the foofaraw because, you see, it's too late. The window of opportunity for prevention has passed, thanks to decades of yammering by morons more worried about their wallets than their well-being. Scientists have pretty much stated that to the UK. Thanks to the disinformation, personal attacks, and outright lies pushed by folks unwilling to accept the bald truth, humanity as a whole has missed that window of opportunity. From the linked article:

The latest study from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put the inevitability of drastic global warming in the starkest terms yet, stating that major impacts on parts of the world - in particular Africa, Asian river deltas, low-lying islands and the Arctic - are unavoidable and the focus must be on adapting life to survive the most devastating changes.

We're now talking about preparation and mitigation, and even now, those same morons are terrified that they won't be able to make money off the slow, but inevitable, suffering of the poor. In my dotage, I shall watch with keen interest as humanity's course changes over the next half-century, knowing full well that humanity as a whole could've done something about it decades ago had we only the intelligence and will at that time.

man, you state some sad truths. so few people are awake and aware. sick sad world.

The people, groups and organizations that claim that 'man-made' global warming is killing the world have cooked the books/put their thumbs on the scale/out-right LIED to prove their point that they can not be taken seriously.

ajgeek:it's really hard to imagine a system that isn't capable of maintaining some form of homeostasis despite constant external forces being placed on it.

Well congratulations (in all seriousness, no snark or sarcasm intended): you understand precisely why it's hard for you (and, indeed, many other intelligent people) to understand why climate change is both so dangerous and so difficult to model. That's a huge first step.

Most of the science education that most of us get is entirely focused on systems that maintain their state, or to be more precise, are stable under small perturbations. What they rarely teach us about (short of majoring in a relevant subject at college) is systems that are unstable or "metastable", i.e. they have more than one stable state and can flip between those states. (I suspect it's because the typical stable systems can be dealt with mathematically with high-school level calculus, whereas unstable systems are beyond hairy).

You can find examples in all the physical sciences (and often in the social sciences, too, especially economics). Astronomy provides good examples. For example, the Earth revolving around the Sun is constantly getting little tugs from Venus, Mars, or Jupiter, but the system is essentially stable, so we don't go spinning out of our orbits. That's the "homeostasis" that your intuition expects. But on the other hand we have comets. They can orbit for literally millions of years as asteroids out in clouds beyond Pluto, ignoring little nudges, until just the right combination of small tugs from the planets and the sun causes one to leave its stable orbit and find a new elliptical path that brings it in close around the Sun where it orbits for many years, in a new, completely different, but equally stable orbit. Just the right small tug causes a big change from one stable state to another.

ajgeek:Does anyone else have trouble believing that 4 degrees is going to cause the end of the world? Sure, on Celsius scale, 4 degrees is pretty significant if you go from 0 to 23 (an 18% increase). But if you switch this to Kelvin (which is what the actual temperature is) the variance is 1.4%.

Are we so fragile that a number we normally consider "in the noise" is enough to wreck the entire planet?

ajgeek:czetie: I'm going to take this at face value, since your profile says you "rarely" troll.

Thanks for the input. I'm still having difficulty with the concept of the system, though. As a non-biologist (and really what is earth but a biosphere with humans mucking about?) it's really hard to imagine a system that isn't capable of maintaining some form of homeostasis despite constant external forces being placed on it. Humans are obviously the most recent, but with 4 billion years of growth, one would imagine that more than a select few species would have a wider viability range than it's currently believed.

abrannan: Just to pile on, TFA stated that a 4.5 degree drop started the last Ice Age.

Oh... that's just awesome. I confess I did miss that. I skimmed more than read.

thurstonxhowell: Are you trying to win some sort of "most misunderstandings in one sentence" contest?

I've admitted I'm an idiot, so there's that. I think some incredulity is warranted with such a huge claim though. I have the same level of skepticism about stem cell research, teleportation, warp drives and the Higgs Boson. I don't discount any of them, but in general, these are massive concepts which have taken teams of people years and decades to work on. One single person couldn't possibly understand all of them based on theoretical knowledge only.

These things all have scientific in-the-lab measurements that they are based on...

SN1987a goes boom:These things all have scientific in-the-lab measurements that they are based on...

I know. I made a poor choice in the phrasing behind theory. My point is that until we have extensive field tests these remain lab theories, which is why I remain skeptical. An aside, I'm aware that they've discovered the existence of the Higgs, lending serious evidence that our theory of the universe is indeed to this point correct, but it needs to be replicated several more times. I'm one of those "applied science" guys. I leave the truly nerdy stuff to the truly nerdy, because they're frankly a LOT better at it than I am.

czetie:ajgeek: Does anyone else have trouble believing that 4 degrees is going to cause the end of the world? Sure, on Celsius scale, 4 degrees is pretty significant if you go from 0 to 23 (an 18% increase). But if you switch this to Kelvin (which is what the actual temperature is) the variance is 1.4%.

Are we so fragile that a number we normally consider "in the noise" is enough to wreck the entire planet?

I'm going to take this at face value, since your profile says you "rarely" troll.

First, "in the noise" for a day (or even a season) is not the same as "in the noise" over the longer term of years and decades. As an analogy, compare the temperature to your personal budget. Your bank balance is probably all over the place over a given month, depending on when bills fall due. It probably even has seasonal variations (e.g. spending goes up during the holidays). But overall, what matters is whether spending is higher or lower than income over the long term. And if spending is higher than income, even by a small amount, in the long run bad things will happen.

The other thing about climate is that it's a complex, non-linear system with lots of feedback loops. And like many such systems, it can remain stable within certain parameters, but flip into a different stable state that has very different outputs for a small change in inputs.

Here's a simple (and simplified) example. The planet warms a little. Ice cover in the arctic declines a little. With less ice (bright) and more exposed water (dark), more sunlight is absorbed in the arctic ocean so that particular part of the planet warms even faster, accelerating the ice loss. At some point the rate of loss passes a tipping point, and a huge amount of ice dumps into the ocean. That causes an important ocean circulatory system that brings warm water north to shut down, and suddenly northern Europe is getting Ice Age-like winters. But it all happens because over a sustained period, the arctic was warmer by an amount that on a single day would be "in the noise".

To continue the budget analogy, suppose you deal with your budget shortfall by charging stuff to your credit cards. So now you have to pay interest on the credit cards in addition to your other expenses, so now your budget shortfall is even worse, so you charge even more to your cards. Pretty soon, the interest charges are eating ever more of your budget, and your shortfall is accelerating... Before long you've forfeited your car title on a payday loan, you're sleeping in the park, and you're giving $10 blowjobs at truck-stops to make ends meet.That's an example of a non-linear system: a relatively small shortfall in your budget turns into a catastrophic outcome.

Anyway, that's the basic principle.

If you want to understand it properly (i.e. not my half-assed explanation and analogy), there's tons of material available online at any depth of detail and degree of quantification you want -- but it's only useful to people who are open to the concept that a nominally small change, sustained over a long period, can cause a dramatic change in a system's state.